This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
As a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat, I want to encourage my Republican bretheren to continue putting forth such great thoughtful leaders as Rush Limbaugh and Michael("The Government has never created a single job") Steele.Of course if they follow my advice, they will go the way the way of the Whigs. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
Sure the goverment can create jobs. We can have people dig holes and then refill them and give them a paycheck. The real question is, can government create prosperity with massive Keynesian spending policies. The answer is no.
I smoke pot too
SE: people get gov't jobs, they get a paycheck. Because they have a paycheck, they buy things,e.g. cars and washing machines. When they buy cars and washing machines, the car company and the washing machine company hire more workers..This is elementary economics, and the Repubs are just "intellectually dishonest" when they fail to recognize this.
Regardless of where the dye ended up, the thinking on display is certainly wooly.
Regardless of where the dye ended up, the thinking on display is certainly wooly.Ilíon, what more could we expect of a liberal Democrat? The one thing we know about them is their complete ignorance of economics. Gordon Knight, can you give one example (other then some very sort term boost) where Keynesianism actually revived an economy in depression or deep recession? And, sorry, but don't bring up FDR. The New Deal was a total failure, as the second depression of 1937 proved. Same with Japan's attempts in the 1990s. Not until debt is significantly reduced, and a correction is allowed to take place (which our government is trying to prevent by attempting to re-inflate the bubble economy), will we see recovery.
The new deal was a short term failure to the extent that although it relieved the depression (unemployment more than cut in half), it did not end it. This is because FDR was a very relunctant Keynesian, if one at all. He even cut spending in his first budget! And, as you note, he cut back on new deal spending after 1936,which was a mistake.WWII was much more expansive spending, and it was this spending that lead to the end of the depression. The new deal was overall a huge success, a long term success. Social security, unemployment insurance, rights for labor unions, FDIC (if it were not for the FDIC, we would be in a depression now--can you imagine if people's deposit's were not insured?). Yes I fear Obama's stimulus is too damn small. we don't need half measures in this time of woe.Do you seriously think that, e.g. Eisenhower's highway project had no influence on the economy?
SE: "Ilíon, what more could we expect of a liberal Democrat? The one thing we know about them is their complete ignorance of economics."But SE, you *also* sometimes decline to think properly (logically, rigorously) on certain subjects. What I have in mind specifically is your pointless attempts to attack and/or bait me. Now, perpaps you do, overall, intend and attempt to think in a logically and rationally rigorous manner -- and I, for one, would welcome more of that all around -- but since your first posts that I became aware of here at Mr Reppert's blog were *pointless* attempts to attack my person, while avoiding the content and context of what you were supposedly responding to, I just haven't paid any attention to your posts.Could it be that you've tamed-down or reconsidered your initial stance vis-a-vis me?
GK: "The new deal was a short term failure to the extent that although it relieved the depression (unemployment more than cut in half) ..."LOL Which hagiography did this non-true "fact" come from? And even if it had been true, how would that even begin to address that the New Deal (as with all such "liberal" schemes) was a wholesale violation of the US Constitution?How do mere humans get justice by engaging in injustice?
Here's an amusing (and as always with Steyn, excellent) take on some current events related to this topic -- Mark Steyn: The Girlyman Governor
Could it be that you've tamed-down or reconsidered your initial stance vis-a-vis me?Maybe. You do kind of grow on a person after a while ;)But, Ilíon, you too often seem to make pointless comments that don't add much if anything to the discussion (if there is one) and that seem designed to get a reaction from those whose opinions you don't agree with. From your point of view, you may not have such a motivation, but it comes across that way.One thing it is hard for me to learn, and I think is hard for everyone to learn, is to not react in a resentful way to any remarks from anyone. This doesn't mean that one shouldn't have normal human emotions, but it does mean that we shouldn't let others control us by the manner in which we react to them (and it also means we shouldn't seek to get such reactions) for that only gives someone else power over you. Obviously we agree on many things, and I hope in the future, when we do disagree, we can do so amicably.
WWII was much more expansive spending, and it was this spending that lead to the end of the depression. Gordon Knight, Sorry, but you're wrong again. All WWII did was temporarily end the unemployment problem. If your view is correct, why didn't we experience another depression at the war's end? Federal spending dropped drastically, from a high of almost 99 billion in 1945 to only 34 billion by 1948. That's why there was a post-war recovery.
Yes I fear Obama's stimulus is too damn small. we don't need half measures in this time of woe.Spoken like a true Keynesian! If your insane policies don't work, blame it on the fact that we didn't throw even more money down the rathole.
SE: "But, Ilíon, you too often seem to make pointless comments that don't add much if anything to the discussion (if there is one) and that seem designed to get a reaction from those whose opinions you don't agree with. From your point of view, you may not have such a motivation, but it comes across that way."Then pay closer attention (and, once again, in passing, I will mention that when I first became aware of you you were directing at me just what you're incorrectly accusing me of doing).The primary point of my actions which you're complaining about is to highlight the illogic and/or irrationality ... and/or intellectual dishonesty ... of the comments/assertions I am targeting.One can neither argue nor discuss a matter with a person who is being illogical or irrational on that matter; it simply can't be done, it's logically impossible. Thus, one must either deal directly with the illogic or irrationality, in the hope that the other will move into a logical/rational stance, or drop the entire matter. I find that the most effective way to deal with intentional illogic and/or irrationality is to mock it (in fact, I don't know of any other way to deal with it) -- the person behaving so already knows what he's doing, he has chosen to behave so, so merely calling it to his attention is just about pointless; one can rarely *reason* with a person about his unreasonableness, and never when it's intentional. However, one can sometimes shame another into behaving as he ought.SE: "Obviously we agree on many things, and I hope in the future, when we do disagree, we can do so amicably."I don't hold grudges. Well, not for long, at any rate.If you should disagree with me or argue against some position I might take and do so *logically,* then there's not a problem.It's the so-common refusal (*) to reason properly, and also the so-common refusal to carefully read and understand what one wishes to dispute, which draws my attention and sometimes scorn, regardless of which "side" the person is on. Certain persons will ignorantly (or dishonestly) assert that I cannot abide criticism; but this is false: what I will not abide is illogic, for illogic is but falsehood, and intentional illogic is worse than simple lying. Intentional illogic is intellectual dishonesty. It is to reason as hypocrisy is to morality; both are the assertion of a double standard.(*) I *must* say "refusal" because the only other option is to say "disability." But, to say that another person is unable to reason properly is to say that that person is stupid. I am not willing to assert that about persons whom I don't know well enough to have solid ground for believing it to be so, for it would be dishonest of me to assert such.
Hey, perpetual motion works in physics! So of course there is in economic matters a principle corresponding to perpetual motion.It's simple really: if the governmemt spends, say, $1 trillion this expendature will generate, say, $1.05 trillion, for a net benefit and wealth-creation of $50 billion in this particular hypothetical. If the then spends $1 trillion of the return on the initial "investment," thus benerating another $1.05 trillion, then we are all up by $100 billion.It's failsafe and fool-proof!
Yahoo! News (AP): Feds spending millions on Kennedy legacy in Mass. -- "BOSTON – More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys. ..."
Being an independent conservative, I've got no particular interest in either the GOP or Limbaugh. But I'd agree with what I heard on Jim Quinn's radio show this a.m. The GOP should admit that Rush is their de facto leader only upon the admission from the Dems that George Soros is theirs.
Rob G, Both major parties are hypocritical, but the Democrats are usually more so. At least the Republicans have discovered some principles again, now that the socialists are in power. I've never cared much for Limbaugh, but at least he's opposing the current march of folly, and any opposition to increasing Federal control of our lives is welcome.
Post a Comment